Chamber and committees

That goes back to one of the principles that I discussed in my opening remarks, which is about ensuring that we run an effective system but always with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect underpinning it. We have a duty to steward those public funds responsibly, and a key part of that is about recovering assistance that has been paid out incorrectly, where it is reasonable to do so. That is the very important caveat, which I hope reassures Mr Balfour.

The decision about where to place liability hinges on two questions. Did the individual or their representative cause or contribute to the error, and was it the sort of error that a reasonable person would be expected to notice? If the answer to both those questions is no, neither the representative nor the individual will be considered liable. It is important that people are reassured that the system that we have in place is thorough and that it will look seriously at overpayments, but that it will not do so in a punitive manner when people have made genuine errors.

If the representative made an error in good faith but it was the sort of error that a person could reasonably have been expected to notice, that would mean that the benefit was paid out incorrectly. Therefore, it is important that the benefit is recovered, where possible. In our view, it is fairer to place the liability for the overpayment on whichever party benefited from it—there is an important distinction between the person the benefit is for and their representative. In those circumstances, as in all cases in which there have been errors, we would look at the issues case by case.

It is important that the process has a statutory underpinning and that the guidance that the agency uses for that process is worked on together with stakeholders, so that those who represent vulnerable clients are reassured that the agency has in place safeguarding measures that ensure that the system is not punitive and does not seek to recoup overpayments in a way that is detrimental to the individual if they are in difficult financial circumstances. The agency will work with stakeholders on the operational guidance, which will include the safeguarding measures. It is important to have a strong and robust system and that we are respectful and cognisant of an individual’s case or of the circumstances of the representative of the individual.

I do not think that that needs to be included in the bill. There is a requirement for flexibility, and needs will change. Looking way into the future, when we have all moved on to other things, we would perhaps be obligating the agency to collect information by statute that it does not necessarily want to collect. Say, for instance, we entirely changed a benefit but we still had something in legislation requiring the agency to collect information. That would be quite a blunt instrument.

What is behind your questioning is the fact that we need to ensure that we are gathering the right information, and I accept that that is correct. We are developing that process with the agency, which I know is keen to have systems in place to allow the collecting of more management information for its own benefit and, therefore, that of the client.

I do not think that that needs to be in the bill, partly because of that inflexibility but also because you are pushing at an open door, Mr Balfour—indeed, we all agree that more needs to be collected, and I am always happy to have suggestions from the committee about where that might be.

I often have discussions with the chief executive and the senior team on the level of management information that we have and what it is possible to publish to allow full transparency. I sometimes have frustrations that, at this point, we cannot publish as much as I would like in order to be able to demonstrate how well the system is going.

That is an important point. Given everything that we have done in the past on social security, I hope that Mr O’Kane is reassured that we always endeavour to work closely with people with lived experience. We will continue to do that on those types of assistance and on other parts of policies to do with care experience.

It is an important point that we need to listen to, and I am happy to give that reassurance. If the cross-party group wants to be involved in that, I am at its disposal.

The member raises an important point, and I appreciate that carers have asked the Government to consider it. At present, there is no legal requirement for Scottish ministers to increase the earnings limits for benefits delivered under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 or under UK-wide legislation, but carers believe that it is exceptionally important for us to consider it.

The committee will be aware that, overall, the most important aspect for which the Government has responsibility is the safe and secure transition of payments. As we move through case transfer for carers, we are keen to prevent a two-tier system, whereby some people are on one earnings threshold due to some regulations, while others who have not had their case transferred yet would be on a different system. That is not a place where we want to be.

Following case transfer, the way in which the UK Government looks at earnings limits and so on might not be the most appropriate or robust way of making earnings measurements in Scotland; it will require further analysis. When we get to the point of case transfer completion—once a safe and secure transition has been completed; I reiterate that we are on target for the completion of case transfer by the end of 2025, as we had planned—that will be the time to consider it.

The member will be aware that carers themselves took part in the consultation on carers, and they discussed the different priorities. The Government wished to have a realistic discussion, noting that we might not be able to do everything all at once, because of financial and resource limitations. We are, however, committed to considering that approach for the increase of earnings thresholds for Scottish benefits once the case transfer is complete, using the discussions that have already taken place under the carers consultation and keeping the discussion going as we move to case transfer completion.

Of course, we look to do what we can within the powers that we have to support people, and that does not just include social security, as I said.

The purpose of annual uprating is to maintain the true value of a benefit payment as prices rise overall. Applying a consistent measure of inflation across all benefits is more manageable and reflects people’s overall experiences. I appreciate that energy and food inflation has been high during the cost of living crisis, but it is volatile and difficult to predict.

The Government in Scotland has a responsibility to consider what can be done, but we must also be cognisant of the fact that the powers over energy and what can be done on energy bills lie with the UK Government. I refer, for example, to the social tariff, which the UK Government remains opposed to progressing in any way, shape or form that will benefit people.

The social security payments that will be made through Social Security Scotland are important, but they are not the only way to address the issue. One of the challenges that we have is an understandable but challenging ask for the Scottish Government to mitigate the inaction of the Westminster Government on energy and, indeed, on the ending of the cost of living payments. As I discussed with Mr Doris earlier, we are already £1.1 billion over what we receive in block grant adjustments, and that has to come out of the overall Scottish Government budget.

Of course, we look to see what can be done, but, at the foundation of the matter, the UK Government must ensure that it lives up to its responsibilities.

I take those requests very seriously, and the organisations that are challenging the Government to uprate the Scottish child payment further are absolutely right to do so. The point that we have raised with them, and which I have made in the chamber on a number of occasions, is that we have had to make really difficult choices as the budget has gone through.

I will not rehearse again the figures that I have mentioned. However, I will add that going beyond the uprating of the Scottish child payment for inflation to increase the payment to £30 per week, for example, would cost an additional £57 million, which would have to be found in the budget and taken from elsewhere. Increasing the Scottish child payment to £40, which some campaigners have asked for, would require an additional £228 million to be found in the budget. As members are aware, there simply is not that spare budget sitting unallocated in the budgetary process.

I also remind the committee—Mr Mason was there on Wednesday when we had this discussion—that members from across the chamber rightly challenged the Government to say that it is not just through social security that we should assist people. We need to look at employability, wages and other ways to support people. That is exactly why we look at the three drivers of poverty in “Best Start, Bright Futures: Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022-2026” and why it is not just about social security.

In summary, yes, we look at that. We have taken our decisions on the basis of the budget that is available to us, but we also look at the other ways that we can support people, in addition to the uprating of the Scottish child payment.

The irony was not lost on me, as I am sure it was not lost on others, that, when the Scottish Government increased the Scottish child payment to £20—obviously, it is higher now—the UK Government took away the £20 uplift to universal credit, so what the Scottish Government gave with one hand, the UK Government took away with another. The member is right to point to the real challenges that we have in trying to protect people with a top-up when universal credit is at the level that it is at. That is exactly why we have continued to call for an essentials guarantee, which would—the clue is in the name—ensure that people can afford the essentials in life. Unfortunately, to date, that has been rebuffed by the UK Government.

Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the draft order and regulations. The draft Social Security Up-rating (Scotland) Order 2024 provides for the uprating of benefits administered in Scotland by the Department for Work and Pensions. The draft Social Security (Up-rating) (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 provide for the uprating of devolved benefits administered by the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. I am pleased to say that the laid instruments provide a 6.7 per cent increase in the rates of all devolved benefits. That means that we are uprating all those benefits where there is a statutory requirement for us to do so, and we have additionally chosen to uprate those where there is no statutory requirement.

We know that the hard Brexit and the Tory cost of living crisis are having devastating consequences and a detrimental effect on people. That is why the Scottish Government is investing a record £6.3 billion in social security in 2024-25, delivering £1.1 billion more than was received via the block grant adjustment from Westminster. We are doing all that we can within the limited powers of devolution to protect people from the continued austerity that is being driven by Westminster. Since 2022-23, we have continued to allocate around £3 billion a year to policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible during the on-going cost of living crisis.

In addition, this year, as part of our annual process to consider the impact of inflation, the Scottish Government has published a fuller multicriteria analysis of the available uprating measures. We consider that the annual rate of the consumer prices index to September remains the most appropriate measure to use. Subject to parliamentary approval, the new rates will come into force in April 2024.

I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the uprating instruments, and I welcome any questions that you may have.

As you say, the issue was debated when the Social Security (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament. The Government’s view at the time—it continues to be our view—was that it is important that there is sometimes a discretionary approach to uprating, as that allows ministers the flexibility to consider all the different ways in which we can support people. As the committee is well aware, social security is but one way in which the Government can and does support people during a cost of living crisis, or at any other time.

It is important to look at the different benefits that we have. Some are of a higher value and perhaps provide a greater proportion of a person’s income, and some are intended to supplement income from other sources. There is a difference in the types of benefits that Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government administer, which is why we take different approaches to them. As I said, we also look in the round to see whether there are other ways outwith social security that we can support people. That is why we have the £3 billion a year overall to support people during the cost of living crisis.

Indeed, it reduces the Scottish Government’s flexibility to spend the money on anti-poverty measures and other measures. Of that £1.1 billion, £614 million is for new benefits that are unique to Scotland, including the Scottish child payment, which will cost £457 million in 2024-25. We also have £110 million for other social security benefits, such as the welfare fund and discretionary housing payments. The spend above the BGA for social security is around £368 million, of which £300 million is for the adult disability payment.

I hope that that gives the committee a sense of the decisions that are taken on new benefits and the policy changes that we have made to other benefits that have been devolved, which have led to that £1.1 billion additional expenditure above the BGA.